Saddleback - Appalachian Trail

imported
#1

I first have to say that I think this website is terrific. Zipdrive and Leif, I feel privleged to be able to use this site.

Next . . .

Remember Saddleback, and the struggle to get the AT on it protected? In case you need to be refreshed, check out this site http://www.appalachiantrail.org/protect/issues/saddleback.html

So anyway, my question is - stupit though it might be - was the whole ordeal to protect the mountain or to protect the trail, by which I mean to put the trail in a protected corridor?

I feel that if it was to protect only the mountain, then thats fine, even though it was for four million. I understand that there is a fragile ecosystem both on the mountain and within the pond (Eddy Pond) that would have been siphoned for snowmaking. I agree that these alpine communities need protection. So that’s good.

But if the purpose was to protect the trail, then I’m left scratching my head. For sure, they acheived that goal, and we now have a fully protected corridor from Georgia to Maine.

But as Paul Harvey would say, “Now, for the rest of the story.”

Are you familiar with Mount Abraham? It’s not on the AT, but connected to it by a side trail in the vicinity of Spaulding Mountain. The mountain is also in the vicinity of Saddleback, and is every bit as scenic (i.e. extended exposed ridgeline) and boasts an alpine plant community surpassed in size only by Katahdin. Mt Abraham (Abrahm as it is called by us locals) is every bit a gem as Saddleback, and more - it is relatively undeveloped (by which I mean no ski resorts, no major lumber harvesting on or near either of its hiking trails, and the viewshed is, to the north, Sugarloaf, Spaulding and a smaller mountain. To the south, you can see Saddleback (the side without the ski trails), and in the west is numerous mountains that extend to Quebec. Its perfect.

At the time the trail on Saddleback was protected, the Appalachian Trail Conference already owned 1,100 acres on Mount Abraham. This land was then donated to the State of Maine Bureau of Parks and Lands. The BPL already owned over one thousand acres on the eastern slope, and eventually seeks to have more than 6,000 acres all around the mountain. The land was valued at more than one million dollars, in case you’re counting.

Had the ATC rerouted the AT counter-clockwise from Eddy Pond to the eastern slope of Mount Abraham instead of pursuing the trail on Saddleback, the overall cost would have been much, much less. After all, there was already a protected corridor on Mount Abraham.

The four million dollars which would have been used to protect Saddleback instead could have been put to other use. I can’t cite specific locations, but I’m sure there are places on the AT, at least in Maine, that could use a little extra width on the corridor.

But of course, both mountains are now protected. If that was the purpose, then that’s great. But if it was to protect the trail, then maybe the only bad part is that the Park Service didn’t investigate other alternatives.

I dunno. Maybe this isn’t the best of arguments. Even if I’m right, you know the old saying - being right and having 50 cents will buy you a cup of coffee. But I’m always the one to ask really odd questions from time to time. I would like to see what others have to say, though.

Kineo Kid

#2

By protecting the land around the trail, the mountain got protected as well. The funds were made available to protect the trail and the mountain got protected as well. I guess its kinda like Ducks Unlimited. They protect wetlands for the purpose of hunting and killing ducks, but in the process of protecting wetlands the save non-game animals, and clean water as well. If the ATC went bargain hunting what would have happened to SaddleBack? I realy enjoyed my hike accross SaddleBack and would like to thank the nameless people who spent countless hours to protect it.
TB

TurkyBacon

#3

It seems to me that sking has a pretty small impact
on mtns. Since one of the goals if protect lands beyond
protecting them is for people to be able to be there
to see and appreachiate what is protected. There are a
lot of peeple that appreach mtns from skiing that wouldn’t
other wise. I don’t see that hikers are better than skiiers. I’ve personally done a lot of both.
Now you have my 2 cents.

mark t

#4

I am a long time member and fan of the ATC. I believe they may have gone a little overboard on the protection of Saddleback. The ski lodge wanted to add some lift poles that you would have had to get off the AT to see. Four millon to stop something you can’t even see, as opposed to buying land in Virginia that you can clearly see, from Tinkers Cliffs or MacAffee’s knob may have been a long term mistake. However, I also believe their heart was in the right place. Right or slightly wrong I strongly support the ATC, no matter what their decision.

Blue Jay

#5

Ski slopes and golf courses should not be built anymore. They ravage natural systems, diplace already cornered wildlife, and reduce the nobility of the land. All of this so people can buy thousands in ski gear or clubs. It’s all money-making. How can you appreciate nature sitting in a mechanized lift or a golf cart? The answer is only as much as it lets you. When the raw, chaotic harmony is groomed, it loses its natural integrity until that grooming is halted. Makes me want to get my monkey wrench out now just thinking about it. So what’s the deal here? What’s four million dollars worth when it protects land? The answer is it’s money well spent, and it becomes more valuable than can be estimated. There’s always a better way to spend it, until after its spent.

THA WOOKIE

#6

Yo Wookie. You need to go to the middle of nowhere Alaska for your wilderness. The computer you’re rambling on was built in a huge factory destroying many animals and birdies during it’s construction. You are a HUGE hypocrite. I’m an avid golfer. I was a snowmaker at Jay Peak for years.

Lone Wolf

#7

OK, lone wolf, so you play golf and made snow. Big deal. Does that make those gutted land areas less environmentally destructive? I play golf and ski about once every 3 years. But I don’t support new golf courses OR ski areas. All I’m saying is we have enough, perhaps too much, and they are causing serious impact -so we don’t NEED any more! As far as a computer goes, I’ve never bought one, Einstein! So how does typing on a publically-owned one make me a HUGE hypocrite? And what’s wrong with the Alaska Wilderness? I’m sure you can’t wait until they start drilling up there. Yet you probably don’t give a snap about the real wolves up there. Did you know there is a bill in the house TODAY proposing such drilling? Log on sierraclub.org and quit your wining. Maybe you should tell some of your frat boys too.

THA WOOKIE